JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.R. Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 to 11, 13 and 14. There is no representation for the respondent No.12. 2. The informant of the occurrence which took place on 28.03.2013 at about 23.00 hours, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing further investigation/reinvestigation in Bodhjungnagar PS. Case No.26/13 under Section 148, 149, 448, 380, 436, 506 and under Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act [corresponding to PRC No.309/2013] now pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura (Court No.7). 3. Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the written ejahar filed by the petitioner, it clearly surfaces that the accused respondents raided the house of the petitioner and they were armed with the lethal weapons including pistol etc. Thereafter, they set their shop on fire after spraying petrol. They suffered damages. Apart that, the accused-respondents took away the gold ornaments and other valuables from their shop. When the inmates of the informant tried to resist, the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences on brandishing the pistol. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed under Section 148, 149, 448, 443, 380, 506 of the IPC read with Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act but at the time of taking cognizance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448, 446, 506 of the IPC but did not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and under Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act. Moreover, it has been stated that the informant’s wife is one of the eye witnesses but she was not examined by the police officer. As a result, the investigation did not reach to its required standard to ensure the justice to the victim. 5. Mr. Moreover, it has been stated that the informant’s wife is one of the eye witnesses but she was not examined by the police officer. As a result, the investigation did not reach to its required standard to ensure the justice to the victim. 5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has categorically submitted that a report of the fire incident bearing No.4527-28/3-12 FIRE (W)/2010 dated 04.06.2013 issued by the Divisional Fire Officer, West Division, Agartala has catalogued the nature of the damage and the other aspects of the fire incident but the investigating officer did not collect the said document from the office of the Divisional Fire Officer. Even the said Divisional Fire Officer was not cited as the witness as he was not examined as the witness. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel, the said report of the Divisional Forest Officer is a vital document. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that the investigating agency should be directed to conduct further investigation and submit the supplementary chargesheet in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. If the investigation is not fair, there is always a possibility of failure of justice. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel the informant is aggrieved for the following reasons: (a) One of the eye witnesses has not been examined (b) The Divisional Fire Officer who prepared the report of the fire incident has not been examined or cited as the witness, not even the fire incident report has been seized from him for purpose of placing before the trial. The other grievance as expressed in this petition is that not taking of cognizance of the offence/s punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and under Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act is absolutely illegal as at the time of taking the cognizance, the court shall ordinarily rely on the final police report. 6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that police be directed to investigate further by examination of one Shipra Biswas, wife of the informant and to seize the document from the Divisional Forest Officer in respect of the fire incident and to submit supplementary chargesheet to place the same before the charge is framed. 7. Appearing for the accused-respondents, Mr. 6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that police be directed to investigate further by examination of one Shipra Biswas, wife of the informant and to seize the document from the Divisional Forest Officer in respect of the fire incident and to submit supplementary chargesheet to place the same before the charge is framed. 7. Appearing for the accused-respondents, Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel has succinctly submitted that even though a victim or the State can in an emergent situation urge for the further investigation but the mode of investigation can neither be regulated by any court or by the informant. The statutory investigators shall carry out the investigation independently and according to their best ability and also for purpose of achieving the very object of investigation i.e. to collect all possible materials by pursuing a fair investigation. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that when the informant filed the written complaint, he did not disclose that his wife namely Shipra Biswas was the eye witness to the occurrence. There is umpteen number of decisions including the decisions rendered by the apex court, where it has been stated that if the name of the eye witness is not stated at the outset, their inclusion in the later part of the investigation may sometime create serious doubt about the integrity and to the fairness of the investigation. It is only natural that the informant had the knowledge that his wife was the eye witness to the occurrence but from a bare reading of the written complaint it would be apparent that such disclosure was not made even though the complaint is quite elaborate. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that there is no allegation of bias against the investigators. Only for placing the few materials, the informant wants a further investigation. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the police collected the materials and according to them there is a prima facie against the accused-respondents under Section 436 of the IPC. In that premises, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has stiffly opposed the prayer for further investigation. 8. Mr. A.R. Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State has submitted that even if this court directed the further investigation for the purpose as pointed out by the complainant, the State will have no objection. In that premises, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has stiffly opposed the prayer for further investigation. 8. Mr. A.R. Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State has submitted that even if this court directed the further investigation for the purpose as pointed out by the complainant, the State will have no objection. However, he has candidly submitted before this court that he does not find that the further investigation is the only alternative inasmuch as at the time of framing of the charge, there would be a fresh scrutiny of all the materials and if the court finds that the materials do prima facie satisfy the court about commission of offence under Section 380 or Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act or offence punishable under any other Section of IPC or other special acts, the court is sufficiently empowered to frame the charge, but that must be supported by the materials. 9. Having situated thus, this court should only observe at this stage that the police is always at liberty to go for further investigation placing information to the competent court. As Mr. A. R. Barman, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the State does not have any objection if the further investigation is taken, the investigating agency may take care of this order and they may decide in their discretion whether they would go for any further investigation or not. It does not depend on the direction of the court at this stage. However, the apprehension that has travelled the mind of the informant can be alleviated if the informant engaged a lawyer in conjunction with the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. PP, or any special PP to place their arguments in respect of the inclusion of Section 380 of the IPC and Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act. However, the apprehension that has travelled the mind of the informant can be alleviated if the informant engaged a lawyer in conjunction with the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. PP, or any special PP to place their arguments in respect of the inclusion of Section 380 of the IPC and Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act. It is further mentioned that even on perusal of the records (the police papers) or at the time of recording the testimonies of the witnesses, if the court found that for purpose of unearthing the truth, if it is revealed from the statements of the witnesses as the court is sufficiently empowered to call any person as the witness who appeared to it material for purpose of the decision to be taken in the trial under Section 165 of the Evidence Act or under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., but the court before exercising that power shall make a proper assessment whether their testimony would be of any use for decision in the trial or not. 10. Having observed thus, this petition is disposed of with the following liberty to the informant. The informant shall be permitted by the trial court to raise all the issues as raised in this petition and the trial court after scrutiny of all the materials would frame the charge. That apart, as observed, the investigating agency will remain at liberty to cause further investigation in respect of the aspect as identified in this petition. 11. Mr. A.R. Barman, learned Addl. PP shall be supplied with a copy of this order for onward transmission, particularly to the respondent No.2 or to the Secretary to the Department of Home, Government of Tripura, Agartala. LCRs be returned forthwith.